Amtrak files complaint over CN delays on two routes from Chicago

[schlimm]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/traffic/ct-met-getting-around-0213-20120213,0,3392577.column

[schlimm]

I think this is an indication of how difficult it is to run passenger service on freight tracks.  But the worst is the CN (IC & GM&O).

 

[oltmannd]

I think it's clear from the numbers what CNs priorities are.  It will be interesting what the STB does about it.

[n012944]

CN's response:

http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7f93537688b8e5852573210004b318/921b0309f3b0746f852579bc007c1883/$FILE/232010.pdf

[n012944]

A lot of stuff from the CN's complaints does not paint Amtrak in a good light.

 

"As a result of Amtrak failing to properly fuel its locomotives, this has been a recurring 

problem, particularly in the area of Champaign, IL. [For example, on September 4, 2011 Train 

#58 (New Orleans to Chicago) was delayed for half an hour in Champaign while it was refueled 

after it left Carbondale, IL, with insufficient fuel to make it to Chicago.  Similarly, on July 5, 

2011, Train #391 (Chicago to Carbondale) ran out of fuel on a single-track segment just south of 

Delrey (between Chicago and Champaign), causing more than 15 hours of delay to itself, another 

Amtrak train, and four freight trains. "

 

 

" In the Chicago area, where the need to coordinate operations between railroads is 

especially compelling, Amtrak has failed to join CN and most of the other freight railroads in 

efforts to implement the Common Operational Picture (“COP”), a train monitoring system that 

provides information about operations on multiple carriers.  Through the use of secure Internet 

connections, this system is designed to receive data from the computer-aided dispatching 

systems of the participating railroads, convert them to a commonly-accessible format, and 

provide participating railroads’ dispatchers (again through secure Internet connections) with a 

graphic display, visible on computer monitors, laptops, or other screens, of track occupancies, 

track authorities (i.e., clearances for trains to proceed), switches, signal lamps, location names, 

and train IDs on the lines of multiple railroads.   

In declining to participate in COP, Amtrak has ignored the potential that this program 

offers to provide information that will enable dispatchers to move Amtrak’s and other carriers’ 

trains more expeditiously through the Chicago terminal.  This is just one example of Amtrak’s 

failure to take any responsibility to address the communications challenges shared by the 

Chicago-area railroads"

 

"See, e.g., E-mail from Mark Nordling to M. Savoy et al. (June 22, 2011) (Exhibit G 

hereto).  In addition, on September 23, 2011 Train #393 was held for 20 minutes at a location 

south of Champaign, IL to recrew its engineer, and on September 15, 2011 Train #59 was held 

for 45 minutes in Carbondale, IL, for recrew.  Ironically, Amtrak alleges that the occasional 

expiration of CN crews under the Hours of Service Act constitutes “operational negligence” and 

a failure of the “exercise of due care.”"

 

[blue streak 1]

n012944

"As a result of Amtrak failing to properly fuel its locomotives, this has been a recurring 

problem, particularly in the area of Champaign, IL. [For example, on September 4, 2011 Train 

#58 (New Orleans to Chicago) was delayed for half an hour in Champaign while it was refueled 

after it left Carbondale, IL, with insufficient fuel to make it to Chicago.  Similarly, on July 5, 

2011, Train #391 (Chicago to Carbondale) ran out of fuel on a single-track segment just south of 

Delrey (between Chicago and Champaign), causing more than 15 hours of delay to itself, another 

Amtrak train, and four freight trains. "

Absolutely no excuse for running out of fuel!

 

 

" In the Chicago area, where the need to coordinate operations between railroads is 

especially compelling, Amtrak has failed to join CN and most of the other freight railroads in 

efforts to implement the Common Operational Picture (“COP”), a train monitoring system that 

provides information about operations on multiple carriers.  Through the use of secure Internet 

connections, this system is designed to receive data from the computer-aided dispatching 

systems of the participating railroads, convert them to a commonly-accessible format, and 

provide participating railroads’ dispatchers (again through secure Internet connections) with a 

graphic display, visible on computer monitors, laptops, or other screens, of track occupancies, 

track authorities (i.e., clearances for trains to proceed), switches, signal lamps, location names, 

and train IDs on the lines of multiple railroads.   

In declining to participate in COP, Amtrak has ignored the potential that this program 

offers to provide information that will enable dispatchers to move Amtrak’s and other carriers’ 

trains more expeditiously through the Chicago terminal.  This is just one example of Amtrak’s 

failure to take any responsibility to address the communications challenges shared by the 

Chicago-area railroads"

So why isn't all the RRs including Amtrak participating in this program.  Maybe it is time to implement a multi RR disppatching system such as LAX, mid Texas, Atlanta, etc ??? 

The loss of some double track according to CN all falls upon Amtrak to pay for upgrades,. ?

 

[n012944]

blue streak 1

 

So why isn't all the RRs including Amtrak participating in this program.  Maybe it is time to implement a multi RR disppatching system such as LAX, mid Texas, Atlanta, etc ??? 

Amtrak is the only major railroad that I know of that does not participate.  CSX, IHB, BRC, NS, CN, UP, and the BNSF all do.  I have no knowledge if the CP does or not.

 

 

 

The loss of some double track according to CN all falls upon Amtrak to pay for upgrades,. ?

 If the only reason double track is needed on the line is because of Amtrak traffic, it should fall on Amtrak to pay for it.  It is really no different than what is going on in Michigan, the NS does not need class 4 track for what it operates there, and should not have to bear the costs just for Amtrak's use.

 

[blue streak 1]

n012944

 

 If the only reason double track is needed on the line is because of Amtrak traffic, it should fall on Amtrak to pay for it.  It is really no different than what is going on in Michigan, the NS does not need class 4 track for what it operates there, and should not have to bear the costs just for Amtrak's use. 

But IC abandoned much of their racetrack, double track, and cab signals in the 1990s by pushing Amtrak and FRA.  Now their freight traffic is up and its all Amtrak's fault ?  Many of the improvements CN proposes is restoration of double track.

[n012944]

blue streak 1

 

n012944:

 

 

 

 If the only reason double track is needed on the line is because of Amtrak traffic, it should fall on Amtrak to pay for it.  It is really no different than what is going on in Michigan, the NS does not need class 4 track for what it operates there, and should not have to bear the costs just for Amtrak's use. 

 

 

 

But IC abandoned much of their racetrack, double track, and cab signals in the 1990s by pushing Amtrak and FRA.  Now their freight traffic is up and its all Amtrak's fault ?  Many of the improvements CN proposes is restoration of double track.

Here is the question, could the railroad operate as a single track railroad fluidly is Amtrak was not on the route?  If the answer is yes, then yes Amtrak should have to pick up the costs to make it fluid for its own traffic.

[schlimm]

n012944

 

blue streak 1:

 

n012944:

   If the only reason double track is needed on the line is because of Amtrak traffic, it should fall on Amtrak to pay for it.  It is really no different than what is going on in Michigan, the NS does not need class 4 track for what it operates there, and should not have to bear the costs just for Amtrak's use. 

But IC abandoned much of their racetrack, double track, and cab signals in the 1990s by pushing Amtrak and FRA.  Now their freight traffic is up and its all Amtrak's fault ?  Many of the improvements CN proposes is restoration of double track.

 

 

Here is the question, could the railroad operate as a single track railroad fluidly is Amtrak was not on the route?  If the answer is yes, then yes Amtrak should have to pick up the costs to make it fluid for its own traffic.

It's a valid point but I wonder why you seem to think CN and other roads are always in the right with regard to ATK and community and safety issues?

 

[n012944]

schlimm

 

n012944:

 

 

blue streak 1:

 

n012944:

   If the only reason double track is needed on the line is because of Amtrak traffic, it should fall on Amtrak to pay for it.  It is really no different than what is going on in Michigan, the NS does not need class 4 track for what it operates there, and should not have to bear the costs just for Amtrak's use. 

But IC abandoned much of their racetrack, double track, and cab signals in the 1990s by pushing Amtrak and FRA.  Now their freight traffic is up and its all Amtrak's fault ?  Many of the improvements CN proposes is restoration of double track.

 

 

Here is the question, could the railroad operate as a single track railroad fluidly is Amtrak was not on the route?  If the answer is yes, then yes Amtrak should have to pick up the costs to make it fluid for its own traffic.

 

 

It's a valid point but I wonder why you seem to think CN and other roads are always in the right with regard to ATK and community and safety issues?

 

I never said anyone is always right, except myself of course

[Gotrans]

n012944

blue streak 1:

 

n012944:

   If the only reason double track is needed on the line is because of Amtrak traffic, it should fall on Amtrak to pay for it.  It is really no different than what is going on in Michigan, the NS does not need class 4 track for what it operates there, and should not have to bear the costs just for Amtrak's use. 

But IC abandoned much of their racetrack, double track, and cab signals in the 1990s by pushing Amtrak and FRA.  Now their freight traffic is up and its all Amtrak's fault ?  Many of the improvements CN proposes is restoration of double track.

CN and IC or should I say Mr Harrison has a history of lifting double track on both the IC and CN and then having to replace it a future in favour of short term profits. When he was CEO of CN he ordered the lifting of double track on sections of main line track between Edmonton and Jasper, Hamilton and Niagara Falls and then sent the track to the US to repair the damage he had done to IC. As a former shareholder of CN I must say that VIA and Amtrak should not have to pay for additional infrastructure unless it is for trackage that is to be used by them exclusively. They should pay higher access charges for track that is maintained at above 55 - 60 mph. They should only have to pay for infrastructure if they are increasing the frequency above a certain limit. The daily City of New Orleans which represents most of the route between Chicago and New Orleans can hardly be seen as a major impediment to freight traffic.

The problem with funding private railway infrastructure is that improvements are generally taken over solely for the benefit of the freight railway and Amtrak and Via are back to where they were before the infrastructure was built.

[Mario_v]

Cannot see how 3 trains per day in each direction (Chicago - Carbondale), and one on the whole line can be the source of such a war. Yet the cases presented by CN seem to be a source of porblems, but maybe not the only one.

Now one thing I do not u nderstand is the 'single tracking' strategy. Not only the lines in cause loose capacuty, but maybe it's not a sound strategy, since trains will loose more time crawling in and out of the sidings, and consume maybe more fuel trying to get back to track speed. Where are the economies, even in the short term? Single track +  slower trains = less reliable service+more fuel consumtion, less capacity and worse service to shippers. Maybe all that downsizing had costs that are still being paid, and will be more if eventaully capacity isto be restored to the previous standard.

The days of 80 Mph average speeds with passenger trains (between Effingham and Centralia) are long gone ... and of course, without cab signal security levels are maybe reduced. Just my 2 cents

[schlimm]

For the IC, the savings were on track maintenance.  Short-term, of course

[BaltACD]

Mario_v

Cannot see how 3 trains per day in each direction (Chicago - Carbondale), and one on the whole line can be the source of such a war. Yet the cases presented by CN seem to be a source of porblems, but maybe not the only one.

Now one thing I do not u nderstand is the 'single tracking' strategy. Not only the lines in cause loose capacuty, but maybe it's not a sound strategy, since trains will loose more time crawling in and out of the sidings, and consume maybe more fuel trying to get back to track speed. Where are the economies, even in the short term? Single track +  slower trains = less reliable service+more fuel consumtion, less capacity and worse service to shippers. Maybe all that downsizing had costs that are still being paid, and will be more if eventaully capacity isto be restored to the previous standard.

The days of 80 Mph average speeds with passenger trains (between Effingham and Centralia) are long gone ... and of course, without cab signal security levels are maybe reduced. Just my 2 cents

Not being in the US to actually see how today's American railroading is done, you aren't in position to see the 9000+ foot freight trains with 10K to 20K tons of freight.  From a dispatching perspective, you would not believe how hard it can be to 'part the waters' amongst the priority, non-priority, bulk commodity and local switcher freight trains that occupy today's railroads.  American freight railroading is similar to European freight railroading only in the characterization 'freight railroad'.

While I cannot condone CN's handling of Amtrak, I can understand their operating practices as distasteful as they are to Amtrak and Amtrak's customers.

[blue streak 1]

BaltACD

Mario_v:

Cannot see how 3 trains per day in each direction (Chicago - Carbondale), and one on the whole line can be the source of such a war. Yet the cases presented by CN seem to be a source of porblems, but maybe not the only one.

 

Part of the complaint comes from CN's dispatch performance the past 12 months. CN has led (worse ) almost every month including this FEB. If the delays on this short segment were eliminated then CN would go from worse to first. Just to be fair CN lowered the delays this past FEB almost in half from the earlier complaint.  ( per Amtrak FEB performance report ).